Re: PC-relative TLS support

2019-08-21 Thread Alan Modra
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 07:45:19AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > But if you think we can remove the !TARGET_TLS_MARKERS everywhere it > is relevant at all, now is the time, patches very welcome, it would be > a nice cleanup :-) Needs testing everywhere of course, but now is > stage 1 :-)

Re: PC-relative TLS support

2019-08-19 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:29:30AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 01:24:07PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 01:35:10PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > > > Supporting TLS for -mpcrel turns out to be relatively simple, in part > > > due to deciding that

Re: PC-relative TLS support

2019-08-15 Thread Alan Modra
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 01:24:07PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 01:35:10PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > > Supporting TLS for -mpcrel turns out to be relatively simple, in part > > due to deciding that !TARGET_TLS_MARKERS with -mpcrel is silly. No > > assembler

Re: PC-relative TLS support

2019-08-15 Thread Segher Boessenkool
Hi! On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 01:35:10PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > Supporting TLS for -mpcrel turns out to be relatively simple, in part > due to deciding that !TARGET_TLS_MARKERS with -mpcrel is silly. No > assembler that I know of supporting prefix insns lacks TLS marker > support. Will this

PC-relative TLS support

2019-08-14 Thread Alan Modra
Supporting TLS for -mpcrel turns out to be relatively simple, in part due to deciding that !TARGET_TLS_MARKERS with -mpcrel is silly. No assembler that I know of supporting prefix insns lacks TLS marker support. Also, at some point powerpc gcc ought to remove !TARGET_TLS_MARKERS generally and